Talk:Boston Tea Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mohawk dress/"costumes" at Boston Tea Party, not Narragansset,

Most historical references cite the Patriots attending the direct action against the British as wearing Mohawk dress and not Narragansset Indian dress. This should be rectified within the Boston Tea Party entry on Wikipedia as soon as possible... though the citation for the reference in question does say Narragansset dress, most every other source you can find (textbooks, historical reference, historical narrative) point toward Mohawk dress if they do not simply and explicitly mention it. Credence is lent in this regard by this article: http://www.boston-tea-party.org/mohawks.html If someone can make the change or expound on it within the article, that would be sufficient to get it up to the general historical consensus and probable fact.

I do not feel comfortable making the change myself as the present citation used in the article may already be sufficient to some folks out there and does note there is a discrepancy on what dress/costumes were worn during this historical event.

Thank you! Acedian (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've modified it in light of what you added, and I wish someone had an online link to provide so we could see the Naragansett cite. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much... You found a good way to do it without completely modifying the text... good job! Acedian (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ace! Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

King George inaccuracy

The sentence "King George III was outraged," is clearly inaccurate. The "Dartmouth arriv[ed] in late November 1773" (on or about November 27th - http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/boston-tea-party2.htm) and the tea party was 19 days later on December 16, 1773. This is far too short of a time for news of the standoff to reach King George in England and have his response be pertinent to the events going on. Even today with modern ships the fastest transatlantic sailing speeds recorded are just over 9 days (http://www.sailspeedrecords.com/content/view/15/17/) with an average speed of 12.77 knots (23 km/h). Moreover, those records were made in June and not early winter. It is much more likely that King George was "enraged" when news got back to him after the tea party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.27.41 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in Background

Thanks everyone for a great article. I have essentially no prior knowledge of this event and I'm not able to piece together the facts in the Background section the way it is written now. Can someone clarify the tax situation? How was bringing tea from the Netherlands considered "smuggling"? I'm guessing there was some sort of law that importers of tea to the colony had to pay both British _and_ American duty (did the "smugglers" pay the American duty?). If that is the case it has been omitted from this discussion. After the Tea Act, the BEIC was authorized to import tea to the colony directly from China. Since the smugglers were importing indirectly from the Netherlands, did they have to pay some sort of Dutch duty? Was it less than the British duty the BEIC formerly had to pay? Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear this up!kanoa (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I added background information that hopefully will clear this up, although much work remains to be done on the article. —Kevin Myers 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Much more readable kanoa (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Other tea parties

Any chance of having modern day Tea Parties detailed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.215.173 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a link to the 2009 "tea party" protests in the article, if that's what you mean. The details belong in that article, not here. If you mean other "tea parties" before 2009, such as the 1998 protest, or the Vietnam War-era tea parties, yes, we should briefly mention them here. —Kevin Myers 05:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lowering Corporate Tax on the East India Company Was a Major Cause

I believe that a MAJOR reason the tea of the East India Company was targeted in the Boston Tea Party was because the Colonists were angry that the Tea Act LOWERED THE CORPORATE IMPORT TAXES on the East India Company Corporation to 0% from its original 15%, resulting in an unfair corporate competitive advantage against other smaller tea sources which were still to be taxed at 15%.

In light of the ERRONEOUS assumptions currently made by most Americans about the Boston Tea Party being conducted because of ADDED taxes on the Colonists (as opposed to their righteous anger over the British Government only lowering Corporate Taxes) - taxes which were, in fact, the same as those in Britain, I believe - this issue of government favoritism towards the East India Company Corporation should be included in the title paragraph instead of just the vague current wording that it was caused by "various issues." The current sentence summarily reduces the significance of the anger against Britain's bias towards the East India Corporation, which existed at that time in both Great Britain and the Colonies, and the vague wording eliminates the reader from recognizing the Tea Party's importance as a statement against Corporate dominance and bias by the British Government in the import/export trade of that time.

I believe Wikipedia should be a source of accurate re-education of the American public which currently has a serious misunderstanding of the anti-corporate anger against the East India Company Corporation felt by most of the Colonists. Hopefully, one of you who is involved in updating this entry will reword the title paragraph to show this (and possibly other important issues) so that the entry more fully summarizes the main causes instead of just treating the physical event. After all, THE CAUSES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, are they not? CentristViewpoint (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)CentristViewpoint

Which historians have published this interpretation in peer-reviewed sources? Unless you can answer this question, I'm afraid we can go no further here, since Wikipedia is not the place to offer our own interpretations. —Kevin Myers 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a "peer-reviewed source" to see that the tea incoming to Boston Harbor was the cheapest the colonists had seen in their lifetime. So what were the colonists bitching about? Obviously not high cost of taxation. *sarcasm on* Oh I get it, the colonists were complaining about low prices, that makes so much sense, of course. *sarcasm off* The Boston Tea Party was an act of Protectionism by the colonists.98.165.15.98 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

CentristViewpoint is correct; this whole article is crap. I remember the historian Niall Ferguson saying that the tea was cheaper than what they could get anywhere else and the protest was organised by smugglers, who couldn't compete with the prices of the East India Company. (Huey45 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Have you actually read this article? This article does, in fact, say that tea was cheaper after the Tea Act, and that smugglers couldn't compete with the new low price, and that smugglers played a role in the protests. Smugglers were just a small percentage of the population, of course, and so historians realize that other factors were involved in the movement. Seriously, read the article, and maybe even one of the listed books. —Kevin Myers 03:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

the "boston tea party" name

When did it become common to refer to this as The Boston Tea Party? Cbh014 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Alfred Young, the name did not appear in print until the 1830s, when the event began to be celebrated. We'll have more about this in the article as some point. —Kevin Myers 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Theft

You don't really expect me to believe no tea was stolen. Even my elementary school history book (a well sanitized volume) had one of the perpetrators taking home a pound of tea, and when we got it my teacher commented that several of them took home a little tea. I can see that no one would want to be caught with a chest of tea the next morning, but some must have been taken. Somewhere in all those scholarly footnotes there must some speculation on the amount of theft.  Randall Bart   Talk  22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an eyewitness account that says 2 people were caught stealing some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.216.41 (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Am I missing something - I read through the article, and it seems to read like the tax on tea was cut to just 3p - which apparently was so low even smugglers couldn't match it. And this caused a massive revolt? This seems somewhat counterintuitive. --86.142.97.137 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem counterintuitive, which is why people so often mistakenly believe that the Tea Party was a protest against high taxes. As strange as it may seem, the protestors were actually resisting a policy that benefited them economically. The dispute was not about the amount of taxes, but who levied those taxes, and what those taxes were used for. If a government can take your property (taxes) without your consent (representation), you are a slave to that government, or so the protestors believed. This was not a tax protest, per se, but an effort to preserve the right of the people to have a meaningful voice in how they were governed. —Kevin Myers 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The protesters were the smugglers, or rather organized by them, and the protest was about being undercut without consultation: it was not "no taxation without representation" but "no changes to taxation without representation". It was part of the extremely close relationship between John Hancock and Samuel Adams. --164.36.38.240 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The colonist were mad about the Tea Act (lowering of prices) because there was stil a tax on them. If they went along with it they would be agnologing Parliments right to tax them. So they rebelled. Hope this helps! Sisgoofball4eva (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism?

The first paragraph under heading "Reaction" ends, "[Sam Adams] argued that the Tea Party was . . . the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights."

That seems to be an anachronism. The first constitution of the American colonies/states I thought was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781. And the Constitution usually implied by the phrase "constitutional rights" wasn't drafted until 1787. Yes, several states adopted their own contitutions, but Massachusetts didn't do so until 1780.

Perhaps the quote could be reworded "... civil rights" or the like. Randall, 208.66.124.31 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1776 references to constitutional rights refer to rights possessed as British subjects under the unwritten, but nevertheless recognized, British constitution. See History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this was part of a general fear amongst the opposition in both Britain and America that the British constitution was under threat by an over-assertive government rather than an an anochronism about the future US consitution. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, as the Massachusetts House of Representatives stated to Governor Hutchinson on March 2, 1773:

The question appears to us, to be no other, than, whether we are the subjects of absolute unlimited power, or of a free government, formed on the principles of the English constitution.

Some Massachusetts Whigs also regarded the 1691 Massachusetts Charter as a constitution. —Kevin Myers 02:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bostonian Business Interests?

Another point to consider in this event is that, John Hancock, the richest man in the colonies, with links to the "Sons of Liberty", made a lot of his money through smuggling Dutch tea. There was such a glut on the British tea market that year, that even with the tax, the tea on those ships would undersell the tea in Hancock's warehouses. Hancock could not allow that tea to hit the market in Boston. His close links to Samuel Adams and others made the disposal of British tea an easy venture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.7 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories can be good fun, but no, there's no evidence that Hancock smuggled tea. —Kevin Myers 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A minor inconsistency in the "Reaction" section

Paragraph two mentions that the ship owners would have preferred that all four ships return to England with their cargo. However the William was run aground and damaged beyond repair in Cape Cod. Returning was not an option for that ship. I'm removing the erroneous reference the the William returning. Jlwoodhome (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Disposal

By the way they did not throw the tea over board because there were sacks in the crates that protected there contents. Rather they cut them open and then dumped it into the harbor proving both the picture and article incorect (Unsigned comment by user 75.168.215.168, 28 Dec. 2009)

Tea Parties were anger over Bush spending?

In neither article cited does it say anything about the Bush administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.147.120 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Section edited accordingly. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Error regarding Boston officials not returning the tea

The first paragraph says that Boston officials refused to return the tea to Britain. I certainly thought the fact was that BRITAIN refused to take the tea back, and was trying to force the colonists to purchase the tea, with the tax included (which was what made the colonists angry: taxation without representation...) LAtruthseeker (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the decision to not allow the tea to be returned was made in Boston by Governor Thomas Hutchinson. It took weeks to send for and receive instructions from London, so Hutchinson acted how he thought his superiors would want. After the Tea Party, he initially received a lot of criticism in Britain for allowing the tea to be destroyed. —Kevin Myers 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What reference material did you use for that, please? LAtruthseeker (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about this point, so you'll find it in any reliable reference about these events. I recommend The Boston Tea Party by Benjamin Woods Labaree and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson by Bernard Bailyn. —Kevin Myers 05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Currency Clarification

Near the bottom of the Tea Act 1773 section , the prices of tea are listed in currency units of s and d. I presume s is the shilling (or 12 pence at that time), but I'm not sure what the d stands for (perhaps pence somehow). It would be nice to have these units be more clearly related to the 3 pence tax rate. Ubik2 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, d stood for pence at the time, for historical reasons (see penny). I've spelled out the monetary units in the article. Hope it's clearer now. —Kevin Myers 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

3/5ths of 25%

3/5ths of 25% should amount to 15%, not 10% right? i cannot verify the citation, but i suppose either "three fifths" or "10%" must be wrong. zpider 188.22.62.66 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If they refunded only 15%, that meant they retained the remaining 10%, which was the effective duty. Confusing wording, but correct. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've simplified the confusing wording. —Kevin Myers 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenwich tea burning

I strongly suggest adding a reference to the Greenwich tea burning which took place on 22 December 1774. The incident in New Jersey was clearly linked to the Boston Tea Party. 71.251.142.33 (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bluesmovers, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} ADD TO:

In early 2009, a series of citizen gatherings called "Tea Parties" began to protest recent increases in government spending, particularly in President Obama's budget and economic stimulus package.[72][73] One of the first of these was held on April 15, 2009, on Boston Common, just a few blocks from the original Boston Tea Party

THIS:

, and also at Christopher Columbus Park whereupon signed replica boxes of Tea were dumped in Boston Harbor.

<PICTURES AVAILABLE>

Bluesmovers (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Too Much Legend?

This entry reads too much like American myth rather than a factual historical accounting.

This isn't terribly surprising since the incident is one of the great stories of the American Revolution, but it is always good to try to portray the facts as well as the common wisdom.

Perhaps the article should be revisited by someone who is up to date on the historical details of the time and the event... like for instance, the details mentioned in the trio of books reviewed in the Dec. 20, 2010 issue of the New Yorker magazine. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/12/20/101220crbo_books_crain 70.67.50.1 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstark123 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not complete, but it seems to be devoid myths and legends, unlike most accounts of the Tea Party that you'll find on the Internet or in books written for kids. This article actually debunks some of the common myths, like that "Sam" Adams gave the signal or that the protest was about high taxes. If you can point out any myths or legends in the article, please do, so that we can address the issue. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Participants

I've found an online list of the participants in the 1773 Tea Party. I was going to add it to this article under the heading Participants, but it's a rather long list. Do others here think it would be of value to the article and Wikipedia as a whole? Bourne 07:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourne (talk • contribs)

Depending on the source, a list you found online might not meet our reliable source requirements. The difficulty with the Boston Tea Party is that we cannot be sure exactly who participated. Decades went by before a few men publicly admitted that they had taken part, and even then historians have determined that some guys who said they took part were fibbing. (This is a phenomenon that still takes place; there are numerous American men, even famous ones, who claimed to have fought in Vietnam but did not.) A few historians have tried to come up with lists over the years. Benjamin Carp, in his recent book, gives his best guess at about 100 participants in the Boston Tea Party. We should report Carp's overall findings (the men were mostly young, etc.), but a list of 100+ names is probably not what we want here. However, we might want to list (or mention in the text) every alleged participant who already has a Wikipedia article. Which alleged participants are already the subject of articles? Paul Revere, Thomas Young, George Robert Twelves Hewes, John Crane, Thomas Melvill, William Molineux, and ...? —Kevin Myers 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin Myers Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Two lists can be found at Boston Tea Party Historical Society and Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum. Are these Wikiceptable sources to use for the cross-check? Bourne 08:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourne (talk • contribs)

Why did SineBot sign my signed comment? Bourne 18:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourne (talk • contribs)

21st Century Tea Party Movement

Regarding the 21st Century "Tea Party" Movement, the kickoff was the 2007 Tea Party on December 16. I don't think it would be incorrect or too little known. Look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickelj (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The popular nationwide "Tea Party" movement was sparked by this video of Rick Santelli on CNBC going off because he hated the fact that he was going to be "paying the mortgages of the losers". Whatever Ron Paul may have done prior, it sparked at the "Rant" video across Twitter and Facebook. Teri Christoph, Stacy Mott, and others from Smart Girl Politics were instrumental in moving things forward to the Feb 27 date, helped by Michelle Malkin and others. Few ever even heard of the Ron Paul event until recently.Ebrockway (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

tea as a luxury good.

is it worth a discussion that Tea was a luxury good to the upper classes and merchant class of The colonies and they resented any tax on their pleasure goods as well as the threat this laid on the sales of smuggled tea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ADVISORY: Potential for POV pushing for the near future, vigilance requested.

Just as an FYI there is reason to believe that this article may soon experience some less than accurate edits by POV pushing persons. Note this possibility is merely my personal opinion based on the fact that this and similar articles could result in efforts by some historical revisionists wanting to discredit Mr. Hartman's viewpoint. It doesn't hurt to simply say;

"Head's up and eye's open chaps!"

 :) 66.97.213.202 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

sam adams

does anyone know why Sam Adams was important in the Boston tea party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.210.98 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Rights? Predating the Constitution?

How could Sam Adams have defended the tea party as a defense of colonists "constitutional rights" when the constitution wouldn't exist for years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.179.14 (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

British Constitution.AerobicFox (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Wiki

Does anyone wish to write a piece on the BTP for Tea Wiki? The wiki is here [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wazashi, 24 August 2011

Please correct in order to meet wikipedias requirements for bias and references:

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea coming into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. [..]

He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

There might be one consolidated piece of literature that confirms these paragraphs.

Should I submit my requests as many small requests in the future?

Wazashi (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A "group" request like this is fine. But you should read WP:LEADCITE. In a Wikipedia article, the lead section is just a short summary of the article itself. Most articles don't need citations in the lead section because the statements in the lead are fully discussed and cited in the body of the article. The body of this article does indeed need further development. Some of the statements you specify as needing attribution need further development in the article; others are fully cited in the article and don't need cited in the lead. All of the the statements you think need attribution are noncontroversial, even common knowledge, and will not need citation in the lead once the article gets fleshed out a bit more. —Kevin Myers 20:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)